Re: Position of MS regarding the future C++ Standard
Alex Blekhman wrote:
Victor Bazarov wrote:
It doesn't take long to shut off the oxygen and watch
folks abandon
popular technology in favour of one that is "just as
good", yet well supported. [...]
To make C# "just as good" all MS needs to do is to make
C++ "just as bad".
I think you're greatly overestimating Microsoft's power. [..]
Do you mean to say that it isn't in MS' power to develop their
own OS (or half-bake it, if you will) so that everything runs
slowly, just to "even the field"? AFAICS they've been proving
you wrong so far...
With all its influence on software [development] market, MS
cannot change how economics works. And MS wouldn't want to
anyway, otherwise it won't make any money from software.
Your sample with 1917 is good. Everything was put upside
down and economy was forced to work in unnatural ways. In
the end, despite its enormous resources, Soviet Union
collapsed economically (and herein politically). MS will
face the same future if it chooses to go against the market.
If we consider the official collapse in 1991 or even if we take
the whole decade before that and count it as "post mortem" for
the Soviet Union, it still gives about three generations of
recovering from the effects of the 1917 revolution. They are
*still* recovering, in fact. That's what I am talking about.
The devastation of a single act can be too vast.
If I understand you correctly, you're trying to say that MS
devised some evil plan
No, you apparently don't understand me correctly. No evil plan
anywhere. Only economics. Only the laws of Nature, so to speak.
It's easier to do only what's necessary to sustain one's own
technology. There is no sense to do anything really to *keep*
the edge C++ has over C# when it comes to 80 cores on a chip.
Nobody would notice. Nobody would care. C++ is on the decline
anyway.
to drag developers over from
perfectly suitable C++ to its proprietary .NET technology
and C# in order to tether customers to MS products. I claim
that people abandon C++ because it doesn't suit their needs
anymore rather than MS evil plan. MS just follows what
market desires.
But that's the chicken and egg problem. How can you claim that
MS "follows" what "market desires" if it's MS who essentially
drives the market? The recipe is simple. First introduce .NET.
Then base the whole OS on it. Then do nothing to keep the rest
of the technologies [running on your own OS] afloat. What will
happen? The other technologies will die out.
C++ is not main rival for C#. MS is just pushing what is
falling anyway. .NET competes mainly with J2EE and similar
technologies. C++ decline occurs naturally. No much efforts
required neither by MS nor SUN to allow it happen.
Exactly. So, when it comes to choosing between C# and C++,
which one do you think MS will nurture, given that the resources
are always limited? Or do I use wrong assumptions, and when
it comes to C# and C++, MS is not choosing, it has enough
resources to sustain both?
Why there are no lake with *two* rivers flowing out of it?
V
--
Please remove capital 'A's when replying by e-mail
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask